Interplanting Lobloly Pine Impacts on Growth Characteristics Norman - S… · Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal Material in the Lower Coastal Plain

Impacts on Growth and Quality of

Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus

taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal

Material in the Lower Coastal Plain

Travis Norman

MSc in Forestry

Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

1

Background

Two clones (C1 & C2) purchased from CellFor

and planted in January and February of 2007.

Somatic embryogenic (SE) seedlings cost

more (~$500/thousand) than OP or full-sib

families.

To test if SE trees should be interplanted with

less expensive OP seedlings to produce a

stand of crop trees that are predominately

high value SE trees.

2

Objectives

To compare the composition of stands

planted as clonal blocks to stands

interplanted with a mixture of clonal

materials and open-pollinated (OP)

seedlings in loblolly pine.

Compare both individual-stem and

stand-level traits and variability.

Assess sawtimber quality and crop-tree

potential of clonal material compared

to the OP genotypes.

3

Hypothesis

In the interplanted treatments the clones

will outperform the OP and SOM

genotypes.

In the pure monoclonal treatments that

were planted, there will be more higher

quality trees because there are more

“good” trees present to compensate for

the trees planted on lower quality micro

sites within a plot.

4

Study Location 5

Site Descriptions

• Established in

January and

February of 2007

• Planted at 436 TPA

(1077 TPH)

• 5 x 20 ft spacing

(1.5 x 6.1 meters)

• Bedded sites

• Lower coastal

plain

• Good competition

control

6

Dry Site

Well Drained

Ditched in 2006

and bedded

Higher site index

(97.2 feet)

7

Wet Site

Poorly drained

Ditched in 2005

and Bedded

Lower site index

(88.8 feet)

8

Study Description 9

Methods

Diameter at breast height (DBH) and total height

of each tree were measured. DBH was measured to the nearest one-hundredth of an inch with diameter tapes.

Total height was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot using Haglof Vertex

Hypsometers.

Each tree was given a mortality rating of 2, 1, or 0. 2 – Healthy

1 – Stressed or defective

0 – Dead

10

Methods Cont. Any trees that were rated with a mortality code of 1 or 0 were

excluded from analysis (~19% at age 6).

DBH and total height were measured during the dormant season, before growth flushing began, at the end of 6 years of growth.

Each tree was given a sawtimber score from 1 to 4.

1 – High-quality crop-tree

2 – Crop-tree (minor defects)

3 – Pulpwood

4 – non-merchantable/non-crop tree

Judging criteria mentioned later

Total volume outside bark (cu. ft.) was calculated using a prediction volume equation from Sherrill et al., 2011.

𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑏 = 0.2571 + 0.00237 𝐷2𝐻

Projected site index (base age 25) values were calculated using a site index model from Dieguez-Aranda et al., 2006.

11

Survival Rates 12

98.61 98.44 98

96.94

95.5

91.27

83.94 83.5

75

80

85

90

95

100

1 2 4 6 1 2 4 6

Dry Wet

Surv

ival

(%

)

Age by Site

Summary Statistics

13 Site Treatment Family N DBH (in) THT (ft)

Dry

OP Clone 1 OP 195 5.85 (0.85) 29.87 (3.77)

Clone 1 71 5.20 (0.81) 29.52 (3.38)

OP Clone 2 OP 189 5.74 (0.92) 30.05 (3.57)

Clone 2 71 5.21 (0.98) 30.83 (3.35)

Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 264 5.40 (0.80) 28.95 (3.10)

Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 272 5.43 (0.88) 31.06 (3.76)

SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 68 5.12 (0.74) 29.88 (3.36)

SOM 212 5.85 (0.86) 28.34 (2.95)

SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 64 5.36 (0.88) 31.44 (3.33)

SOM 204 5.87 (0.70) 28.36 (2.82)

Wet

OP Clone 1 OP 147 5.55 (0.99) 28.31 (4.01)

Clone 1 57 4.97 (1.10) 27.66 (4.31)

OP Clone 2 OP 142 5.22 (1.19) 25.13 (4.18)

Clone 2 52 4.23 (1.14) 24.09 (4.81)

Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 222 5.15 (1.04) 27.54 (4.24)

Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 223 4.59 (1.17) 25.85 (4.99)

SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 55 4.73 (1.25) 25.87 (4.51)

SOM 154 5.18 (1.20) 24.68 (3.68)

SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 57 4.38 (1.04) 25.18 (4.17)

SOM 171 5.31 (1.09) 24.70 (3.89)

Total Volume per Acre 14

165.50 160.65 167.46

164.65

145.91

162.71

112.05

84.83

95.22 102.12

111.28

90.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200O

P_C

lone

1

OP

_C

lone

2

SO

M_C

lone

1

SO

M_C

lone

2

Clo

ne

1_P

ure

Clo

ne

2_P

ure

OP

_C

lone

1

OP

_C

lone

2

SO

M_C

lone

1

SO

M_C

lone

2

Clo

ne

1_P

ure

Clo

ne

2_P

ure

Dry Wet

Volu

me

(ft3

ac-1

)

Site Index Assessment 15

90.2

93.2

82.8

92.5

89.4

85.0

89.5 87.6

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

OP Clone

1

Clone

2

Clone

1

Clone

2

SOM Clone

1

Clone

2

OP Pure SOM

Wet

Sit

e In

dex

(ft

)

98.0

96.1

99.6

94.9

100.1

92.6

96.9

99.5

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

OP Clone

1

Clone

2

Clone

1

Clone

2

SOM Clone

1

Clone

2

OP Pure SOM

Dry

Sit

e In

dex

(ft

)

Clone Level Analysis

Response variables: DBH, total height, and coefficients of variation.

Model: 𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛽(𝛼)𝑗 𝑖 + 𝛾𝑘 + (𝛼𝛾)𝑖𝑘 + (𝛽(𝛼)𝛾)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘 +𝛿𝑙 +

(𝛼𝛿)𝑖𝑙 + (𝛾𝛿)𝑘𝑙 + (𝛼𝛾𝛿)𝑖𝑘𝑙 +(𝛽(𝛼)𝛿)𝑗 𝑖 𝑙+(𝛽(𝛼)𝛾𝛿)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘𝑙+휀𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚

𝜇 is the overall grand mean

𝛼 is the main effect of site 𝑖.

𝛽(𝛼) is the random effect of replication within site

𝛾 is the main effect of clonal variety

𝛿 is the main effect of mixture (SOM, OP, Pure)

16

Clone Level Individual Tree Results

DBH

Total Height

17

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Site 1 7.1633 7.1633 128.46 0.0003

Clone 1 0.5848 0.5848 10.54 0.0315

Site*Clone 1 0.5753 0.5753 10.37 0.0323

Clone*Mixture 2 0.2275 0.1137 2.05 0.2438

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Site 1 264.8059 264.8059 32.91 0.0046

Clone 1 4.5604 4.56047 3.84 0.1217

Site*Clone 1 33.8092 33.8092 28.45 0.006

Clone*Mixture 2 6.9217 3.4609 2.91 0.1658

Clone Level CV Results

DBH

Total Height

18

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

Site 1 701.78535 701.78535 26.96 0.0066

Clone 1 40.222704 40.2227042 2.28 0.2058

Site*Clone 1 9.0897042 9.08970417 0.51 0.5129

Clone*Mixture 2 91.63734 45.81867 2.59 0.1896

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

Site 1 359.79398 359.793984 34.07 0.0043

Clone 1 7.232526 7.23252604 0.44 0.5422

Site*Clone 1 20.175834 20.1758344 1.24 0.3287

Clone*Mixture 2 21.437953 10.7189763 0.66 0.5669

Mixture Analysis

Compares the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment.

Also compares the coefficients of variation for DBH and total height of the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment.

For this analysis, the pure clonal blocks were dropped from the analysis.

Model: 𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛽𝑗 + 𝛽(𝛼)𝑗 𝑖 + 𝛾𝑘 + (𝛼𝛾)𝑖𝑘 + 𝛿𝑙 + (𝛾𝛿)𝑘𝑙 + (𝛽(𝛼)𝛾)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘+휀𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚

𝜇 is the overall grand mean

𝛼 is the main effect of site 𝑖.

𝛽 is the main effect of replication

𝛽(𝛼) is the random effect of replication within site

𝛾 is the main effect of mixture

𝛿 is the main effect of Family (SOM, OP, Clone 1, and Clone 2)

19

DBH

Total Height

20

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

Site 1 6.8797 6.8797 97.63 < .0001

Rep 2 0.1200 0.0600 0.80 0.458

Rep(Site) 2 0.0725 0.0363 0.48 0.622

Mixture 1 0.1042 0.1042 1.39 0.248

Site*Mixture 1 0.0136 0.0136 0.18 0.673

Family 3 5.3408 1.7803 23.71 < .0001

Mixture*Family 1 0.0591 0.0591 0.79 0.381

Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 0.5135 0.1284 1.71 0.172

Error 32 2.4027 0.0543

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

Site 1 262.4591 262.4591 116.25 < .0001

Rep 2 15.0115 7.5057 3.32 0.049

Rep(Site) 2 23.7686 11.8843 5.26 0.011

Mixture 1 0.8014 0.8014 0.35 0.556

Site*Mixture 1 0.1293 0.1293 0.06 0.812

Family 3 17.0992 5.6997 2.52 0.075

Mixture*Family 1 1.7542 1.7542 0.78 0.385

Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 29.3653 7.3413 3.25 0.024

Error 32 72.2479 2.2577

Mixture Analysis Individual Tree Results

Mixture CV Plot Level Results 21

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

SITE 1 323.52 323.52 44.82 <.0001

REP 2 11.85 5.93 0.82 0.449

REP(SITE) 2 12.11 6.06 0.84 0.4414

MIXTURE 1 2.72 2.72 0.38 0.5436

SITE*MIXTURE 1 5.39 5.39 0.75 0.394

FAMILY 3 12.55 4.18 0.58 0.6326

MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 14.00 14.00 1.94 0.1733

REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 58.78 14.70 2.04 0.1129

Error: MS(Error) 32 231.00 7.22

Total Height

Source DF Type III

SS

Mean

Square

F

Value Pr > F

SITE 1 697.83 697.83 51.79 <.0001

REP 2 11.65 5.82 0.43 0.6528

REP(SITE) 2 41.98 20.99 1.56 0.2262

MIXTURE 1 6.95 6.95 0.52 0.4777

SITE*MIXTURE 1 16.79 16.79 1.25 0.2727

FAMILY 3 114.57 38.19 2.83 0.0537

MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 28.76 28.76 2.13 0.1538

REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 101.23 25.31 1.88 0.1384

Error: MS(Error) 32 431.18 13.47

DBH

Sawtimber/Crop-Tree Analysis

Each tree was given an assessment score of 1 to 4.

Of the 4 scores, 1 and 2 are considered as potential crop-trees. Scores 3 and 4 are considered to be non-crop trees.

Things taken into account:

Straightness/sweep

Forking

Branch size

Total height

Lean

Broken tops

Other defects

Determine the likelihood that each of the genetic varieties is a potential crop-tree.

22

Clonal Crop-tree Percent 23

30.88

20.75

41.79

17.65

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2

% o

f C

lone

Treatment

44.14

32.41 35.19

32.52

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2

% o

f C

lone

Treatment

Dry Site Wet Site

Top 5 Ranking 24

Row Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5

1 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM

2 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM

3 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1


5 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM


7 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1


9 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM


11 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1


13 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM


15 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1


17 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM


19 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1


Top 5 Ranking 25

0.8

1.3

0.9 0.6

1.7

0.8 0.8

1.5

0.9 0.6

2.5

1.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

DBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBV

OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2

Mea

n N

o. o

f C

lone

1 a

nd C

lone

2 i

n t

op 5

for

each

bed

in d

ry s

ite

Treatment

0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

DB

H

TH

T

OB

V

DB

H

TH

T

OB

V

DB

H

TH

T

OB

V

DB

H

TH

T

OB

V

OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2M

ean

No

. o

f C

lon

e 1 a

nd C

lone

2 i

n t

op 5

for

each

bed

in

wet

sit

e Treatment

Dry Site Wet Site

Summary & Conclusions Based on these results,

The DBH and total heights of the clones

differed significantly with respect to site and

clonal variety.

The clones are not growing differently based

on mixture.

No significant difference in CVs between

mixtures or genotypic families.

Overall, the OP and SOM material expressed

greater diameter and height growth than the

clonal material in the interplanting treatments.

26

There are far too few clones ranked as

potential crop-trees per bed.

Therefore, with these genetics,

interplanting clonal loblolly pine material

at these sites would not be a worthwhile

investment.

27 Summary & Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Douglas Clark, Sander

Denham, Carrie Rosental, Courtney

Johnson, and Jadie Andrews for aiding

in data collection. Thanks to the

Cooperative Tree Improvement Program

for providing the study. Funding was

provided by NC State University.

Thanks to my committee.

Dr. Bronson Bullock

Dr. Steven McKeand

Dr. Renee Moore

28

References

Dieguez-Aranda, U., Burkhart, H. E., and Amateis, R. L.

2006. Dynamic Site Model for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda

L.) Plantations in the United States. Forest Science,52(3):

262-272.

Sherrill, J. R., Bullock, B. P., Mullin, T. J., McKeand S. E., and

Purnell, R. C. 2011. Total and Merchantable Stem

Volume Equations for Midrotation Loblolly Pine (Pinus

taeda L.). South. J. Appl. For. 35(3): 105-108.

29

Thank you!

Questions?

30

Documents

Interplanting Lobloly Pine Impacts on Growth Characteristics Norman - S… · Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal Material in the Lower Coastal Plain